"The Master's Tools...."

What follows is a brief discussion of Audre Lorde's often-quoted statement,"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." The discussiontook place on WMST-L in September 2008. For additional WMST-L files availableon the Web, see the WMST-L File Collection.

My brain is mush right now and I'd appreciate a reminder of who wrote about"....bringing down the father's house using his own tools....." and what IS theexact quote?Thanks so much,Sasha McInnessasha AT netbistro.com

Hello, Sasha,It's "The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house." And thereason why is that, when we use the Master's tools (i.e., the tools ofpatriarchy), we are reifying his authority, his ability to determine whichtools are effective. Therefore, each act of "dismantling" also rebuilds hispower.From the essay titled "The Master's Tools Will never Dismantle the Master'sHouse," published in *Sister Outsider* (and perhaps in other venues, too).Peace,Jeannie--Jeannie Ludlow, Ph.D.jeannieludlow AT gmail.comCoordinatorWomen's Studies & Women's Resource CenterEastern Illinois UniversityCharleston, IL 61920

I don't think anyone has gotten the exact quote yet (unless it is differentin other version of the Lorde essay?) ...The title of the essay (actually a speech, wasn't it, it in its originalincarnation?) is "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master'sHouse" and the exact quote from the text of the essay is a sentencefragment: "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."That word choice ("dismantle" in contrast to "destroy" or "bring down") isimportant, I think, in the context of the essay, it's evocative ofstructure, system, constructedness, deconstructability, conscious effort --and my students and I spend some time close-reading the paragraph in whichthat line appears in conjunction with the second paragraph of the piece, inwhich Lorde writes "What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchyare used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that onlythe most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable."(The "master's tools" sentence fragment is on page 13 of my 1984 Ten SpeedPress copy of Sister Outsider.)Milton W. Wendland, M.A., J.D.Attorney at Law (New York, Florida, & Dist of Columbia)Doctoral Student (ABD), Program in American Studies & Grad Student Instructor, Dept of Women Gender & Sexuality StudiesThe University of Kansas, Lawrence

From a book review in the American Historical Review, February 2006.(Plus:my own observation: nobody "owns" language, or other aspects of a culture.They are a common heritage, and we all use the tools available to us, inmany different ways.)DaphneTodd Vogel. ReWriting White: Race, Class, and Cultural Capital inNineteenth-Century America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 2004.Pp. x, 194. $22.95.Audre Lorde famously wrote that the master's tools would never dismantle themaster's house. In this book, Todd Vogel demonstrates how a carefulrereading of American cultural and intellectual history complicates, if notcompletely contradicts, Lorde's pronouncement. Taking Standard English asone of the principal instruments in the master's toolbox, Vogel argues thatappropriating "'white' language to write about nonwhite experience"-what hecalls the "supplanter tactic" (p. 10)-was one of three strategiesnineteenth-century minority authors, actors, editors, and orators used tosubvert and otherwise dismantle dominant discourses of whiteness and regnantideologies of white superiority. Although there is considerable overlapamong them, the other insurrectionist tactics Vogel identifies are what hecalls "revisionist narration," the purposeful refiguring of foundationalmyths of national origin, and "social theory," the direct engagement withand challenge to "white aesthetics," which people of color used to rewrite,"again in 'white' language," prevailing definitions of race and gender (p.10).

Dear WMST-L,It's fantastic to hear that Todd Vogel finds that standard English isa powerful tool of intellectual resistance. It sounds like aninteresting book.If one looks at the actual Audre Lorde essay, however, and not simplyher quotes out of context, one finds that her objection is ratherdifferent. Lorde argues against internalizing a patriarchal fear ofdifference -- in particular, racism and homophobia -- in the women'smovement, which in her view will never dismantle the "house" ofoppression in which we as women live. For example, simply read thevery last paragraph of the essay:"Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in thisplace and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into thatdeep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror andloathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears.Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all ourchoices."It horrifies me that we can have a WMST-L exchange regarding a famousAudre Lorde quote without any mention of the location and passion ofher articulation (at an NYU conference in which black feminists andlesbians were barely included). I urge all of you to actually read theentire essay --http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/margins-to-centre/2006-March/000794.html(not sure if this is identical to the 'Sister Outsider' version, butit looks like it) -- as a *political* intervention, not the BlackFeminist Quote Generator.I could try to explain more Lorde, but it's easier and more powerfulto just read her. And more respectful, too.Peace,Madhumita Lahiri

"It horrifies me that we can have a WMST-L exchange regarding a famousAudre Lorde quote without any mention of the location and passion ofher articulation"The thing is, quotations can take on a life of their own, and Lorde's has donejust that. I've seen it invoked to justify contempt for all sorts of "master'stools" - you know the kind of thing - putatively male science, reason, logic,language, etc etc etc. That of course is not Lorde's doing, much less herfault, but it is a part of the resonance of that particular quotation.opheliabenson AT msn.com------------------------------Ophelia Benson, EditorButterflies and Wheelshttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/------------------------------

Ophelia, are you being quite fair here? People take resonant lines fromimportant writers or proverbs and misuse them all the time, even reversingtheir meaning sometime. As in "the exception proves the rule" coming tomean "the exception shows the rule is valid" -- which is nonsense -- whenit really means "exceptional cases test the validity of the rule." Poorold Shakespeare is always quoted as if everything he wrote was his ownbelief, and not words spoken by characters, for dramatic purposes.Polonius's advice, for example -- it's not supposed to be wise or profound,it's pompous platitudes from an old busybody.Still, I too have only ever heard or seen Lorde's famous aphorism used todiscount things I consider absolutely essential to political discourse andprogress like the things you mention, plus elections, voting and anythingconnected with "the system."Katha Pollittkpollitt AT thenation.com

Katha, exactly - that's what I meant. I meant to isolate the quotation and theresonance it has taken on, from Lorde as the source - by way of attempting tobe fair to her. I've attempted to do the same for Shakespeare a million times!(Another classic in that line, along with taking Polonius's banalities aswisdom, is quoting Ulysses's devious and manipulative speech on 'degree' asShakespeare's considered political view - which is completely absurd. One mightas well claim that Iago's mutterings reflect Shakespeare's view of morality.</rant>)opheliabenson AT msn.com

Dear all,Let me pose the obvious question: why did Daphne Patai assume thatAudre Lorde was objecting to white English?I agree that people cannot be bothered to read Shakespeare or Lordeproperly -- but for very different reasons. Audre Lorde seems to beeveryone's favorite token black lesbian feminist, and the misuse ofher quotes has to do with the everyday racism, and perhaps homophobia,of, well, many, many people, some of whom may identify as feminists,women's studies scholars, etc.Yet many folks have read that essay -- so then why do they misuse it?Many people might prefer to believe that Audre Lorde meant malescience in that essay, and not our own racist, classist, homophobicattitudes. They might want to discuss "strategies of resistance" whenusing that quotation, and not who we are and are not inviting to ourconferences (and maybe our listservs), which is what the essaychallenges us to address. And perhaps there's some credibility gainedby using Lorde's words in particular contexts, even when they were notintended to support one's claims.It is this backdrop that makes me horrified by discussions of thatquotation out of context, without a discussion of how it came to betreated that way.Peace,Madhumita Lahiri

I agree with that - especially with Lorde's quote and using it withinthe framework of Lorde's theory (regarding difference). I misused thatquote too often (to argue against mainstream methodologies and socialsciences themselves for instance) in the past and I had no idea, untilI read the piece quite recently, that (to my reading of it) the toolsshe meant were exclusion, subjugation, segregation, alienation, andeven mere tolerance in the absence of a mutual dialogue (the housebeing the interlocking systems of oppression). The misuse of the quotegives too much legitimacy to its misuser (who should be bothered toread the quote's context) for no real reason. At the very least, itturns attention away from on-going problems within feminism...Mehmet Ergunmehmetaergun AT gmail.com

Dear Sasha:Perhaps you are also referring to the essay, "Poets, Lovers, and theMaster's Tools: A Conversation with Audre Lorde," Mary Loving Blanchard fromThis Bridge We Call Home (2002):"In our hands, the master's tools have become ammunition in the dismantlingof his house, as we set about adding an extra room or two. We have takenhis tools and with them made tools that fit our individual hands, as each ofus sets out to do the work we have to do....[W]e'll realize that those toolsdidn't belong to the master, after all. Well, they didn't belong to him allby himself. And that is one way that we gain agency, by adapting the toolswe have rather than by reinventing the wheel; although the wheel isreinvented aong the way." (p. 256-7)Regards,Stella Kao